Ағылшын тіліндегі модальдық етістер: Shall және Will

Discussion of modal verbs

Shall and will are two of the English modal verbs. They have various uses, including the expression of propositions about the future, in what is usually referred to as the future tense of English. Historically, prescriptive grammar stated that, when expressing pure futurity (without any additional meaning such as desire or command), shall was to be used when the subject was in the first person, and will in other cases (e. g., "On Sunday, we shall go to church, and the preacher will read the Bible.") This rule is no longer commonly adhered to by any group of English speakers, and will has essentially replaced shall in nearly all contexts. Shall is, however, still widely used in bureaucratic documents, especially documents written by lawyers. Owing to heavy misuse, its meaning can be ambiguous, and the United States government's Plain Language group advises writers not to use the word at all. Other legal drafting experts, including Plain Language advocates, argue that while shall can be ambiguous in statutes (which most of the cited litigation on the word's interpretation involves), court rules, and consumer contracts, that reasoning does not apply to the language of business contracts. These experts recommend using shall but only to impose an obligation on a contractual party that is the subject of the sentence, i. e., to convey the meaning "hereby has a duty to".

The verb shall derives from Old English sceal. Its cognates in other Germanic languages include Old Norse skal, German soll, and Dutch zal; these all represent *skol , the o grade of Indo European *skel All of these verbs function as auxiliaries, representing either simple futurity, or necessity or obligation. The verb will derives from Old English willan, meaning to want or wish. Cognates include Old Norse vilja, German wollen (ich/er/sie will, meaning I/he/she want/s to), Dutch willen, Gothic wiljan. It also has relatives in non Germanic languages, such as Latin velle ("wish for") and voluptas ("pleasure"), and Polish woleć ("prefer"). All of these forms derive from the e grade or o grade of Indo European *wel , meaning to wish for or desire. Within English, the modal verb will is also related to the noun will and the regular lexical verb will (as in "She willed him on"). Early Germanic did not inherit any Proto Indo European forms to express the future tense, and so the Germanic languages have innovated by using auxiliary verbs to express the future (this is evidenced in Gothic and in the earliest recorded Germanic expressions). In English, shall and will are the auxiliaries that came to be used for this purpose. (Another one used as such in Old English was mun, which is related to Scots maun, Modern English must and Dutch moet)

Both shall and will come from verbs that had the preterite present conjugation in Old English (and generally in Germanic), meaning that they were conjugated using the strong preterite form (i. e., the usual past tense form) as the present tense. Because of this, like the other modal verbs, they do not take the usual s in Modern English's third person singular present; we say she shall and he will – not *she shalls, and not *he wills (except in the sense of "to will" being a synonym of "to want" or "to write into a will"). Archaically, there were, however, the variants shalt and wilt, which were used with thou. Both verbs also have their own preterite (past) forms, namely should and would, which derive from the actual preterites of the Old English verbs (made using the dental suffix that forms the preterites of weak verbs). These forms have developed a range of meanings, frequently independent of those of shall and will (as described in the section on should and would below). Aside from this, though, shall and will (like the other modals) are defective verbs – they do not have other grammatical forms such as infinitives, imperatives or participles. (For instance, I want to will eat something or He's go to sleep do not exist.) Both shall and will may be contracted to 'll, most commonly in affirmative statements where they follow a subject pronoun. Their negations, shall not and will not, also have contracted forms: shan't and won't (although shan't is rarely used in North America, and is becoming rarer elsewhere too). The pronunciation of will is /w//I//l/, and that of won't is /w//oU//n//t/. However shall has distinct weak and strong pronunciations: /ʃ//əl/ when unstressed, and /ʃ//æ//l/ when stressed. Shan't is pronounced /ʃ//ɑː//n//t/ in England, New Zealand, South Africa etc. ; in North America (if used) it is pronounced /ʃ//æ//n//t/, and both forms are acceptable in Australia (due to the unique course of the trap–bath split).

Bryan Garner and Justice Scalia in Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts describe that some legal drafting has sloppy use of the word "shall". Nevertheless, Garner and Scalia conclude that when the word "shall" can reasonably be understood as mandatory, it ought to be taken that way. Legislative acts and contracts sometimes use "shall" and "shall not" to express mandatory action and prohibition. However, it is sometimes used to mean "may" or "can". The most famous example of both of these uses of the word "shall" is the Claims that "shall" is used to denote a fact, or is not used with the above different meanings, have caused discussions and have significant consequences for interpreting the text's intended meaning. Lawsuits over the word's meaning are also common. and Wikiversity as follows:
Shall is usually used to state a device or system's requirements. For example: "The selected generator shall provide a minimum of 80 Kilowatts." Will is generally used to state a device or system's purpose. For example, "The new generator will be used to power the operations tent." On standards published by International Organization for Standardization (ISO), IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission), ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), requirements with "shall" are the mandatory requirements, meaning, "must", or "have to". The IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) defines shall and must as synonymous terms denoting absolute requirements, and should as denoting a somewhat flexible requirement, in RFC documents. On specifications and standards published by the United States Department of Defense (DoD), requirements with "shall" are the mandatory requirements. ("Must" shall not be used to express mandatory provisions. Use the term "shall".) "Will" declares intent or simple futurity, and "should" and "may" express nonmandatory provisions. Outside DoD, other parts of the U. S. government advise against using the word shall for three reasons: it lacks a single clear meaning, it causes litigation, and it is nearly absent from ordinary speech. The legal reference Words and Phrases dedicates 76 pages to summarizing hundreds of lawsuits that centered around the meaning of the word shall. When referencing a legal or technical requirement, Words and Phrases instead favors must while reserving should for recommendations.

As noted above, should and would originated as the preterite (past tense) forms of shall and will. In some of their uses they can still be identified as past (or conditional) forms of those verbs, but they have also developed some specific meanings of their own.